From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78166268 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 21:22:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 667D3E9 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 21:22:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1437168144.7345.9.camel@stgolabs.net> From: Davidlohr Bueso To: Chris Mason Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 14:22:24 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20150715153725.GA12601@ret.masoncoding.com> References: <20150715153725.GA12601@ret.masoncoding.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] benchmarking and performance trends List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 11:37 -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > We're starting to push 4.0 into prod (122 hosts almost counts), and I'm > sure we'll backport some wins from 4.2+. I'm hoping to make this a > collection point for other benchmarking war stories. Our biggest gains > right now are coming from scsi-mq, and early benchmarks show 4.2 has a > boost that I'm hoping are from the futex locking improvements. At least for 4.2 you might also want to keep an eye out for the new qspinlock stuff. Which could be another source of the performance boost you are seeing. Of course I have no idea what your workload does other than suffer from futexes.